Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Jolicoeur


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Of further note is that the article has received a significant amount of cleanup work after being nominated for deletion. See its Revision history for a summary of edits that have occurred. North America1000 07:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicole Jolicoeur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Improperly written and improperly referenced article about an artist. This is not written as a biographical article at all, but instead starts with a header titled "critique of her works" and then proceeds from there to be exactly the original research essay, complete with addressing the reader as "you" in the second person, of your nightmares. And then at the end it just devolves into straight-on résumé. And for referencing, we just have (a) her self-published résumé, and (b) a bare-url'ed link that just goes to a ProQuest login screen, which I can't log into because my ProQuest access doesn't work that way -- but even when I do log into my ProQuest account through the method that does work for me, I still can't find a piece of content in it that actually supports any of the art criticism essay parts that are referenced to it. She might have a legitimate claim of notability, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually show and reference one. But this, as written, is so egregiously bad that it needs the blow it up and start over treatment regardless of her notability or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, the article is awful, but she is notable, with work in the National Gallery of Canada and significant coverage in Female Gazes: Seventy-five Women Artists (book chapter devoted to her), Feminism and Contemporary Art: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Laughter, Faking Death: Canadian Art Photography and the Canadian Imagination, In visible light: photography and classification in art, science and the everyday, etc. Much of the existing content would need to be cut. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said she didn't have a potential claim of notability, I merely said that as written it's a pile of garbage that needs such a fundamental top-to-bottom overhaul of every single thing about it that recreating a new article is more appropriate than simply trying to clean this version up (which won't actually happen anytime soon, if Wikipedia's record on such matters is anything to go by). Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So now you admit that you nominated an article for deletion even though you knew the subject was notable? You ought to withdraw this nom. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Notable topics can still have their articles deleted if the article is problematic — deletion does not create a permanent ban on her ever being allowed to have an article at all, because people are allowed to try again if they can do better. We most certainly can delete even notable topics if the article that actually exists has other problems besides notability itself, such as being a copyright violation or a blatant advertisement or an original research essay instead of a properly written encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is too how it works. There is no deletion policy that supports deleting an article whose subject satisfies the GNG just because you think the article sucks.  Cite some policy if I'm wrong.  And don't cite anything to do with copyright violations, because obviously that's not on point. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reat WP:TNT, which quite clearly specifies that articles can be deleted regardless of notability if they're written so egregiously badly that restarting the whole thing from scratch would be easier and more efficient than trying to clean up all the problems with the existing version. And the next time you feel any sort of urge to play the "I know how Wikipedia works better than a person who's been a well-respected Wikipedia administrator for 15 years, with a very strong reputation for knowing the ropes" card, put it back in the deck and leave it there. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I read WP:TNT a long time ago. I started with the template on the top "which quite clearly specifies that" it is an essay and is not policy.  Of course articles can be deleted regardless of notability for any reason whatsoever.  All it takes is an admin with no scruples who doesn't understand the difference between a policy and an essay and who thinks that the argument from authority isn't a fallacy to hit one button.  And the next time you feel any sort of urge to play the "I know how Wikipedia works better than an IP whose qualifications I have no way whatsoever of knowing" card, put it back in the deck and leave it there. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.  But you probably won't be. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to be ashamed of myself at all — but you obviously need to also read WP:ONLYESSAY if you think "that's only an essay and not a policy" is a valid counterargument to what I said. We have policies to explain what to do and guidelines to clarify how to do it, so guidelines are every bit as binding as full policies in the absence of a compelling reason to make an exception to them, and are not ignorable just because they're "essays". Deleting a bad article does not prevent a better one from being recreated after the deletion, so one does not have to be "unscrupulous" to support the TNT principle at all — one simply has to actually care about the quality of Wikipedia content, which is not a bad thing (though it may well be a pointless "King Canute trying to hold back the tide" thing, at the rate things are going.) Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Another thing about that only-an-essay is that it recommends that deletion is only appropriate when there is an actual reason to delete the edit history, which is not the case here. So not only are you confusing essays with policy but the essays are not even on point.  Perhaps shame isn't the appropriate response.  Have you considered standing for reconfirmation as an admin?  And at least you've dropped your "you can't possibly know as much about WP as I do because you are only a lowly IP" argument.  But it's embarrassing to everyone that you used it in the first place.  For all you know I'm on the arbitration committee.  You've certainly given no reason to believe that you understand WP better than I do and have provided significant evidence that you don't, King Canute. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Meets WP:ARTIST 4(c). For instance, here's an article from Mosaic focusing on her work.  This article from Tessera discusses her work in some depth, and so on.  Obviously the present sad state of the article is only an argument for cleanup through ordinary editing.  It's unrelated to notability. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing as an article being so egregiously bad that even if the subject does pass a notability standard, deleting the existing version and restarting a new one from scratch is still preferable to simply attempting to clean up the existing article. This one has overshot that line by enough to land on the moon. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then stub it. There's no justification in policy for deleting it if the subject meets the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Stub what? If I were to remove all of the inappropriate content from this article, what would be left is "Nicole Jolicoeur is an artist who exists, the end". Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your objection to that? That's how many articles start out. Are you some kind of nihilist?  We believe in nothing, Lebowski.  Nothing! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:ARTIST, in addition to sources listed by above editors, her works are in collections of Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec - Déprises II, National Gallery of Canada - The Perfect Path, Canadian Art Bank - Le jardin de JM Charcot, Université du Québec à Montréal Gallery - Petite prose I, II et III, ps. although i sympathise with nominator about the article's condition, it is not beyond salvage, the infobox is ok, as is the tiny lead:)), if someone wants to remove the rest then add say a "Collections" section using the info i have included here, that would be a start. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. What ever happened to "deletion is not cleanup"? She is well known here, and to quote a random bio, her work is in the "Musée National des Beaux-Arts du Québec, the National Gallery of Canada, the Musée-Château d'Annecy in France, the Canada Council Art Bank, the Université du Québec à Montréal..."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I cut the objectionable OR section and the objectionable resume section. I added 6 new refs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.